Loading...
EAC Minutes 04/02/2003 RApril 02, 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Board Meeting Room, 3rd Floor, Administration Building 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 9:00 AM April 2, 2003 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Members: John Dowd Michael Sorrel (arrived at 9:04 AM) Alexandra Santoro Michael Coe Tom Sansbury Erica Lynne Ken Humiston Collier County Staff: Patrick White, Bill Lorenz, Barb Burgeson, Stan Chrznowski, Doug Suitor, Maura Krauss Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA April 2, 2003 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") - Third Floor I. Roll Call I1. Approval of Agenda II1. Approval of March 5, 2003 Meeting Minutes IV. Land Use Petitions Old Business A. Land Development Code Amendments 1. 2.2.27 Rural Lands Stewardship Area, RLSA Overlay 2. 2.6.22 Supplemental District- Manatee 3. 3.5.7 Excavation (Littoral Standards) 4. 3.9.5.5.6 Preserves 5. 3.14 Vehicle on the Beach Regulations 6. 6.3 Definitions- Density VI. New Business VII. Council Member Comments VIII. Public Comments IX. Adjournment Council Members: Please notify the Environmental Services Department Administrative Assistant no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 287 2003 if you canr~t attend this meetinq or if you have a conflict and will abstain from votinq on a petitioi- (732-2505). General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. April 02, 2003 I. Roll Call -The meeting was called to order at 9:03 AM. A quorum was established. -Members: John Dowd, Michael Sorrel (arrived at 9:04 AM), Alexandra Santoro, Michael Coe, Tom Sansbury, Erica Lyrme, Ken Humiston -Ed Carlson had an excused absence. -Collier County Staff: Patrick White, Bill Lorenz, Barb Burgeson, Stan Chrznowski, Doug Suitor, Maura Krauss II. Approval of Agenda -Barbara Burgeson added a brief discussion by Stan Chrznowski at the beginning of the LDC amendments. III. Approval of March 5, 2003 meeting minutes -Mr. Coe moved to approve the minutes of March 5, 2003 as written. It was seconded by Alexandra Santoro. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. IV. Land Use Petitions -There were no land use petitions. V. Old Business A) Stan Chrznowski -Stan Chrznowski, Engineering Review, stated that they have decided to do a permitting process for easements and encroachments, similar to the permitting for encroachments into a right-of-way. This matter will not come before the EAC again. B) Land Development Code Amendments 1) 2.2.27 Rural lands Stewardship Area, RLSA Overlay -Bob Mulhere, RWA, stated that the staff is still working with this set of amendments. They will be including a set of definitions in this section. He explained that they would like the input of the public and EAC and then staff would be finalizing the amendments in the next few days. He asked if the EAC would have a special meeting to hear the final version of this amendment before it goes to the CCPC for review on April 30, 2003. Page 2 ' April 02, 2003 (The committee decided that they would discuss this matter after they heard the presentation.) Mr. Mulhere explained that these amendments were directly taken from the Goals, Objectives, and Policies and placed into the LDC almost verbatim. -Mr. Sansbury stated that his employer is a large land owner in the area being discussed, but he did not feel that there was any conflict. Mr. White stated that since they were discussing legislation he did not believe there was an "appearance of conflict". He felt that Mr. Sansbury would be able to participate and provide a recommendation on this matter. -Mr. Mulhere explained that the methodology was to place the RLSA overlay into the LDC in the same formatting. The county zoning map will designate which areas are sending and receiving areas. He reviewed the amendment with the EAC and noted any significant portions, additions, deletions, and changes. Page 1 - covered the purpose & intent and the establishment of the amendment. Page 2 - Section C - They proposed to add the sentence: "All ACSC regulations continue to apply to lands designated within ACSC regardless of designation under the Stewardship Program in addition to the standards that apply to those lands that become designated as SRAs within the ACSC." Page three also identifies the basic standards of the program; baseline standards, density/intensity, etc... Page 4 - Section 2.2.27.7 - discusses the SSA designation procedures and provides for what lands may be included in an SSA. Page 5 - Item C2 - they are adding the specific language "Compliance with the following standards shall be considered by Collier County as meeting the requirement for minimization of impact:" These would be impacts would be to HSAs and FSAs. They are also considering adding additional language to clarify how this will not be impacted. They will attempt to address the methodology of how they will determine if an aquifer and water quality are impacted, as well as the fact that there would be no application for a take-permit. Page 6 - Item B - discusses the stewardship credit system, early bonus credits, a credit worksheet that will monitor this process, and the natural resource index and values. Page 7 - Item D - Restoration Potential Index - Mr. Mulhere clarified that they will state the evaluation needs to be conducted by a qualified individual. Page 3 April02,2003 Page 8 - address the restoration credit agreement Page 9 - This portion describes the necessary documents need for a restoration agreement. It also allows for the monitoring of the agreement. Page 11 - The Land Use Matrix is taken verbatim from Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Page 12 - thirteen - establish the stewardship sending area designation application. This details what is expected from staff, what should be submitted, the support documentation, fee, etc.. This is similar to what is expected on a land use application. Page 14 - Item G1 - they are considering additional levels of protection on the lands set aside for restoration, such as protection through conservation easements or "fee-simple" transfer. Page 15 - requires a public hearing process for the SSA credit agreement and the SSA designation. Page 16 - Item 9 - sets out the process for establishing the documents involved in a stewardship easement agreement or deed. Item 10 requires a natural resource management plan. This establishes such things as the existing or potential conservation value and the objectives and benefits, long-term management, location, monitoring, etc... Page 17 - This begins to establish the process for the establishment of the SSA and the review process. It follows a very traditional pattern already established in the county. This is similar to the process for a re-zone. After a staff report, there will be a public hearing before the BCC to designate an area as a SSA. They are considering added language which will allow the board to approve, deny, or approve the application with conditions. Page 19 - this covers procedural legal descriptions, updating the stewardship overlay map, establishes a process for amendments to the SSAs. -Two documents were being referred to in this discussion on the RLSA overlay. The documents were similar but page numbers varied slightly. At this point in the meeting, Mr. Mulhere began to refer to the page numbers of the copy the EAC had. Page 18 - SRA Designation - this follows a similar process as that established for the SSA. One of the major differences is that the SRA designation has a more rigorous Page 4 April 02, 2003 review process. The suitability criteria comes directly from the goals, objectives, and policies. Page 19 - Paragraph two discusses the limitations in establishing a SRA within the existing areas of critical state concern. Item B discusses the process to entitle land and gain stewardship credits so that an SRA can be formed. They are considering using another term other than "entitlement" or defining it clearly in the LDC. Page 20 - discusses the transfer of credits and implements certain goals, objectives, and policy requirements. Most of these come directly out of the goals, objectives, and policies. Page 21 - describes the forms of the SRAs. There are four actual types of SRA entitlements: towns, villages, hamlets, and compact rural developments. Page 22 & 23 - these pages provide for the limitations on the four types of developments. The application package for an SRA is established. Page 24 - sets out the requirements for an application. Page 25 - The SRAs will be required to have a master plan, this is similar to the PUD process. The applicant will also be required to have a development document that provides for the development regulations. Consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies an impact assessment and economic assessment report will be required. -Mr. Coe asked what specifications would be required if a project in Immokalee would impact the Immokalee Rd. Mr. Mulhere replied that any level of service that is impaired to an unacceptable level of service, must be corrected before the impact can occur. Mr. Mulhere explained that the county has adopted the first phase of changes to the concurrency plan, which reduces the window of when the improvements have to occur. He added that this amendment states, if there is an impact, then the county's concurrency plan must be followed. -Erica Lynne asked if they could incorporate the stricter regulations that they are hoping will be adopted into the concurrency plan into this amendment. Mr. Mulhere stated that he believed they were following the requirements of the concurrency plan to date, in order for consistency. -Erica Lynne then asked if it was correct to say that fiscally-neutral meant that the cost of improvements to the road would be borne by the developer of the SRA. Mr. Mulhere Page 5 April02,2003 stated that this was correct and the developer has to demonstrate that there is no impact of the SRA on the county tax-payer. Mr. White clarified that it may be borne by other than the developer, but typically it will not be borne by the local government. For example the costs could be borne by an MSTU or CDD. Page 26 - discusses the SRA Credit Agreement. Page 30 - discusses the SRA application review process. It requires the board to review the staff report and recommendations and the recommendations of the CCPC. It allows the board to approve, deny, or approve with conditions to the application. They are considering placing terminology into this amendment that would also require certain SRA applications to be reviewed by the EAC. If this requirement is added, then the process would be through a public hearing similar to the re-zone or PUD process. Page 31 & 32 - The process to amend an existing SRA is established on these pages. Information dealing with an SRA that will also be a DRI is listed on these pages. They would have to follow the DRI review process. There is the opportunity for someone to come in for a portion of an SRA that does not yet approach the status of a DRI, through an agreement with the ECA or another state agency. Page 36 - provides for the SRA characteristics chart. This was adopted into the GMP and sets forth a basic description and standards of a town, hamlet, village, and compact rural developments. In the next round of amendments, they will be writing more specific design standards for each of the four types of SRAs, which are called for in the goals, objectives, and policies. Page 37 - lays out the common design standards. This section will probably be increased in the next LDC amendment cycle. Item 7 calls for the deviations from LDC standards, this is a similar process to PUD deviations. They will probably be making revisions to this part in the near future to make it more consistent. Page 38 - discusses the infrastructure required. It requires compliancy with the concurrency management system. Item K discusses the impact assessments and what areas need to be assessed. This will be more detailed in the future and more specific requirements will be listed. They will call it a SRA public facilities assessment, because there is a separate requirement for an environmental impact assessment and economic impact assessment. Page 6 April02,2003 Page 39 - discusses potable water, transportation, irrigation water, wastewater, solid waste, stormwater management, and groundwater. These are the public facility impacts that will need to be analyzed as part of the application for designation of SRA. Page 41 - Item L discusses the SRA economic assessment. It explains that up-front one has to demonstrate fiscal neutrality and that one must monitor it throughout the process and write a report on it. If it is not maintaining fiscal-neutrality then the applicant must in some way provide for this, some of the options are listed on this page. Page 42 - a space was reserved on this page for the baseline standards; 2.2.27.9. The baseline standards are for someone who chooses not to participate in the program. This will follow in subsequent amendments. -Erica Lynne asked if they could re-word "deviations" listed on Page 37. She was concerned that the deviations may be considered a "right" of the property owner. Mr. Mulhere stated they were looking at this as well and will find a new word. He clarified that this is not a right and in order to apply for a deviation one must show justification for a public benefit or cause no harm to the public. Mr. White added that the applicant must specifically identify the criteria from which they are seeking a deviation and to what degree they seek to deviate, as well as the notion as to why. -Erica Lynne asked if they could place a provision on page 31-5A to deter inappropriate administrative decisions before a matter comes before the review board. Mr. Mulhere agreed that there needs to be a safeguard, but clarified that in some circumstances it would be appropriate to waiver some of the components. He suggested that the request to waiver a component of the package and the staff's response to the request be recorded in a written document that could then be reviewed by the EAC. He explained that the way they intend to amend this section is that certain SRAs and amendments will be reviewed by the EAC. -Erica Lynne stated that she was also concerned that the description of the developments would not be complete enough for them to assess the environmental impacts. She explained that they currently have this problem with some of the PUDs that they review and this process is going to be similar. She asked that something be placed in the amendment so they can avoid the time that is consumed by doing multiple revisions. Mr. Mulhere stated that they will look into this. Page 7 April02,2003 -Mr. Sansbury asked if they could add the terms "other special taxing districts" to page 38 so that if someone came up with another type of taxing district it will not be prohibited. Mr. Mulhere stated that this was a good point. -Mr. Sansbury stated that the Audubon International golf guidelines were good, but he was concerned that the ability to work with local agencies would be prohibited. Mr. Mulhere stated that the intent was to incorporate those standards, but in no way obligated and not any requirement for designation. -Alexandra Santoro stated that the Conservancy has offered to work with the County and come up with some standards. She felt this was very important. She added that the Conservancy's points (addressed in a letter to the EAC) were very good and asked that the staff consider them when drafting their revisions. She believed that when an environmental impact statement was mentioned in an SRA, that the EAC should be involved and that the EAC should be a part of the masterplan review. She stated that there should be a limitation on hamlets and CRDs, especially in environmental lands. -Mr. Lorenz commented on the request for an EIS for the SRA designation. He stated that the information required for an SRA designation has the same substance that is required in an EIS, but it has a different name. PUBLIC SPEAKERS 1) Nicole Ryan, representing the Conservancy of SWFL, stated that the Conservancy has been generally supportive of the RLSA program. They are concerned that there is no mechanism in place for the county to view the receiving areas as they relate to one another and the cumulative impacts, since they are approved on a case by case basis. They are also concerned about the ambiguity of what the population build out may be. They would like to see some numbers of what the build out population could be. The third concern that they have deals with transportation. Although specific considerations are given to roads within the SRAs, they are concerned about the impacts that these SRAs will have on the County and State roads currently within the rural lands. They were concerned about how the issue of panther habitats would be taken into account with road placements and expansions. They also had some specific concerns with various sections in the LDC amendment. They were concerned that the LDC states that a SSA may be partially or entirely within the boundaries of a SRA. They asked how the county would Page 8 Apd102,2003 delineate which part of the receiving area actually contained a sending area, and how would they monitor the sending areas for things that cannot be seen, such as groundwater, etc.. They were concerned about the LDC section which states "where practicable, directional-drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil and gas extraction". The questioned the definition of "practicable" and asked who made the determinations when a situation fits the definition. They believe the county should establish their own standards for golf courses and offered assistance in establishing these standards. They stated that landowners can give land to governmental agencies for restoration and expressed concerns about if the county was prepared to care for and manage these lands if no other governmental agency chose to do so. They would like to see specificity given to when grocery stores, etc.., will be built in receiving areas; there hope is that residential and commercial buildings will be built concurrently. They agree that the EAC should be part of the process, and feel that this will provide the public with another opportunity to comment. They would like to see the design criteria go through this amendment cycle or at least have it clear that the receiving area plans should not be approved until the use criteria for the forms are established and adopted by the county. They believe the language should be "tightened up" in section 2.2.27-8J7, (deviations). She added that the letter from the Conservancy outlines more of their concerns, they believe the county is off to a good start, and asked that the EAC consider their concerns when making a recommendation. -Mr. Coe asked Mr. Mulhere if this was the first opportunity the public had to provide him with input. Mr. Mulhere answered yes. Mr. Coe asked if it was appropriate to incorporate the regular public commenters into the process or at least provide them enough time to give comments that would go into the draft before it came to the EAC. Mr. Mulhere stated that it was a legitimate point and that normally they try to provide the time for the public. He added that the board will not hear this matter for a month, so there is sufficient time to take all the public input. Mr. Coe stated that it would have been nice if they had this done before it came to the EAC, then the public and staff could make their differences clear at the meeting. Mr. Mulhere stated that the only way to Page 9 April02,2003 accomplish what he was asking, was to have a public workshop and allow everyone to comment. He added that he was not opposed to this. 2) Brad Cornell, representing Collier County Audubon Society, stated that if the county was going to emphasize compact mixed-use rural developments in the SRAs, then the county should specifically say that they require them. They agree that the Conservancy's comments on cumulative impacts and environmental assessment are valid. They also believe that there needs to be specific definitions in the LDC. They believe they need to add language in section 2.2.27.8kb to protect groundwater levels in FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs both during and after construction. Since many WRAs are actual wetlands, they believe that staff should consider not allowing changes to the water control elevations. Alternatively they suggest added criteria to distinguish varying wetland functional qualities to account for protection on varying lands. They also feel that there needs to be more specifics and criteria listed for restoration and monitoring responsibilities. On the evaluation index system, they feel that it is too complicated and suggest that it be addressed and set up in a way that is more easily understood. They would like more specific definitions added concerning qualified restoration activities. They also would like to see the design criteria adopted before they begin reviewing SRA applications. He provided the EAC with a letter from the Audubon Society that outlined their comments and concerns that he referenced. 3) Nancy Payton, representing the FL Wildlife Federation, stated that she liked the idea of having a workshop prior to the EAC meeting. She explained that they feel a definition section needs to be added at the beginning of the amendment. She added that the "numbers" are confusing and asked that something be done in this document to make it clearer. The goal of the FL Wildlife Federation is to get the sending areas designated as quickly as possible and to make the process comfortable, easy, and clear for the landowners. She explained that they believe the EAC should take particular interest in the area of critical state concern and those lands that are receiving lands but south of Oil Well Rd. She explained that the FL Fish & Wildlife Conservation is currently doing a study on bear/Panther habitats, corridor uses, and "road kill". This study is to identify road segments that are appropriate for wildlife crossings. This is being done in coordination with the natural resources and the transportation department. The FL Page 10 April 02, 2003 Wildlife Federation hopes that the areas abutting these wildlife crossings will be some of the first areas to have their credits "peeled off". -Erica Lynne asked if Nancy Payton was saying that she felt the landowners "peeling" of credits was currently a comfortable process or if she believed that it needed changes. Nancy Payton explained that she understood there was discussion of putting more process into this section and she is concerned that too much process will deter landowners, but she does believe that there needs to be accountability and compliance. -The committee discussed whether or not they would like another meeting to review this amendment as Mr. Mulhere had requested. -Alexandra Santoro asked if the changes could be emailed to the individual members of the EAC and they could make comments rather than having another meeting. Mr. Mulhere stated that they could do this, but added that the comments would then have to be made as individuals and not as the body of the EAC. Mr. Lorenz added that if the EAC felt they needed to make comments as a whole, they would still have an oppommity to do so at their next meeting, before it went before the BCC. -The EAC agreed that they would like the revisions emailed to individual members and they would send back any individual comments. -Erica Lynne asked that the comments of the Conservancy, Wildlife Federation, and Audubon Society be integrated into the revisions. She felt they were good comments and encouraged they be considered. Mr. Mulhere stated that they will meet with the agencies, gather the input, prepare a new draft, and then share the new draft with the agencies again. -Mr. Mulhere stated that he understood the EAC's position to be one of general support the LDC amendments, requesting that the staff work with the interest groups who have spoken and any other member of the public who would like to have input, to tighten up the regulations, clarify the regulations, and add definitions; but overall, generally supportive. The Board gave unanimous agreement to this approach. Page 11 At 10:37 a ten minute recess was taken. April 02, 2003 C) 2.6.22 Supplemental District - Manatee -Barbara Burgeson stated that this is the incorporation of the Manatee Protection Plan into the LDC. -Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director, stated that DSAC reviewed all of the amendments except the RLSA Overlay. DSAC was in support of all of the amendments they reviewed except they recommend that the county stipulate SDP upon receiving dredging permits. This stipulation would be in reference to page 8 of the staff report, which states: "If adequate water depth will be achieved by dredging, all necessary permits for dredging must be obtained prior to SDP approval and the dredging must be completed prior to issuance of required certificates of occupancy." DSAC recommends that the SDP be stipulated upon approval of the permits. Mr. Lorenz added that the public does have some disagreements with this amendment. -Mr. Coe asked if staff has had discussions with the public about the disagreements or if they have not yet discussed them with the public. Mr. White stated that they have had discussions with the public and they are "close", but he was hoping that this meeting would help them get "close enough". -Barbara Burgeson explained to the EAC that staff has always required that all state and federal permits be acquired prior to SDP approval. She stated that the permit was required before SDP approval, so that staff can review the adequate depths and any impacts to marine or native habitats in the area. In order to make the final determination on whether or not they can acquire or achieve adequate depths, and whether or not they will have less than 100 square feet of impact, staff need the dredge and fill permit in- hand. Other issues of with SDP approval are that without the state permit, the SDP would not be rated the same since they would not be aware if the conditions could be met. Also, once the SDP is approved, there is no mechanism for staff to require the SDP to come back and be re-amended. Currently when the dredge and fill permit comes back, staff reviews it for special conditions and adds these to the SDP before approval. They also do not have a way to open the SDP for review by the county if changes need to be made after the fill and dredge permit is issued. The last issue is that when the SDP is Page 12 April 02, 2003 approved it allows for commercial property to clear the entire site for the infrastructure and the buildings, therefore if the state has not completed their final inspection of the site prior to the SDP approval, then the site could have already been cleared. This is why staff is concerned about allowing an SDP approval without all final state and federal permits. They recommend this in the LDC. -Mr. Sansbury asked what the reasoning was of DSAC, who disagreed with this part of the amendment. Barbara Burgeson stated that she believed they felt that staff could do their final approval in anticipation that the state will issue those permits, and that staff should take into consideration that the applicant could not have gotten that far into the process if they didn't expect to be able to get the state and federal permits. Mr. Lorenz added that they would be able to have further design and move more quickly on their timeline if they could have the SDP approval first. -Mr. Coe asked how long it took to get the other permit. Barbara Burgeson stated that she did not know specifically, but it was similar to if you are going through an ERP process. PUBLIC SPEAKERS 1) Clay Booker, with the law firm Yotmg, Van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson, stated that the points made in his letter distributed in the last regular meeting, remain their position. Today he was going to limit his comments to the adequate water depth dispute. They believe that at the facility site, one needs the 4 foot mean-low water depth, but they dispute that one then needs the 4 foot depth for five contiguous miles. He explained that this language, "for five contiguous miles" was not, in their belief, the intent or specific language o£the Manatee Protection Plan. This material is covered in section 2.6.22.4.3, (application of the rating system for evaluating a potential site). Mr. Booker explained that he would only be dealing with the first sub-paragraph of this section, which deals with adequate water depth. He used the visualizer to show the proposed LDC language and the original MPP-section 4. The MPP refers to a five mile "sphere of influence". He read the last sentence of this section of the MPP, which read: "this requirement may also apply to the area between the proposed facility and any natural or other navigational channel, inlet, pass, or deep water." He stressed the Page 13 April 02, 2003 word "may" rather than "shall" and added that he saw no indication that it has to be five contiguous miles. They believe this language means that one must have four feet of water depth at the site and if surrounded by shallower waters leading to a channel, then one must provide at least four foot water depth to get to the channel, not five contiguous miles past the channel. They believe if the words "shall" and "five contiguous miles" are left in the LDC amendment, then the county would be altering the original MPP. He added that the five mile sphere of influence mentioned in the MPP was only to apply to the Manatee Abundance Criteria. -Mr. Lorenz, stated that if one does not have the adequate water depth for five miles, then they would not get the preferred ranking. Preferred ranking allows for the most boat slips possible. He stated that the point is that if there is not adequate water depth for five miles, then staff does not want a lot of boats coming out of the area because there is inadequate water depth for Manatee protection. He added that the applicant would be allowed to get the preferred ranking, if they dredged for five miles or ensured that they had adequate depth for five miles. -Mr. Sansbury stated that there are existing marinas that would not be able to get the preferred ranking with the new language. Mr. Lorenz stated that they could if they got the permits to dredged and dredged. Mr. Booker stated that they are not trying to be "greedy", but they want to adhere to the existing language in the MPP. -Mr. Coe stated, that as a county, they have the right to make the county code stricter than the MPP. Mr. Booker stated that he does not dispute that the BCC has the right to amend the MPP, but he did not believe this was the proper forum since this council did not have that right. Erica Lynne pointed out that the EAC is not a legal board and Mr. Booker was fighting a legal point. She explained that the EAC is supposed to give recommendations of how the amendments will affect the environment only. Mr. Sansbury disagreed stating that the EAC is to defend the environment, but they also need to consider the legal ramification, which is why the county attorney is present. Erica Lynne agreed, but added that the EAC is not the legal expert, the county attorney is. -Barbara Burgeson added that the current proposal does not change the way that staff has interpreted and applied the MPP in the past and they are in no way attempting to make Page 14 April 02, 2003 anything stricter. Mr. Lorenz added that this is how they have been interpreting and reviewing projects since the beginning of the MPP's existence. 2) Todd Turrell, a local ocean engineer and president ofTurrell & Associates, stated that he disagreed with the staff's view on the depth requirement. He explained that he was one of the committee members with the Marine Industry's to craft the MPP. He stated that the water depth requirement for five miles was never part of the original plan and that the five mile radius was specific to Manatee mortality, which was imposed on them by the state of Florida. He clarified that there were a number of existing marinas, which would not be able to get a preferred ranking if the proposed LDC amendment was passed. He did not feel that the county should impose stricter regulations than the state or federal agencies do. The original committee has drafted a letter to Commissioner Tom Henning, which states their position that the depth restriction within five miles was never intended. He added that "may be considered" was originally meant to block inappropriate expansions. 3) Butch Morgan, president of Marine Industry's of Collier County, stated that he agreed with the two previous speakers about the original intent of the MPP and how it applied. He stated that they believed that the staff was "adding specifics to the MPP without being specific". They disagreed with section 26.22.2.1 because it did not allow the use on non-motorized vehicles. They do not agree with this section since homeowners in the area would not be able to use their smaller boats. They also do not agree with section 2.6.22.2.3, since it will restrict residents to one boat, which will not allow two small boats that fit in one slip. Another issue they had was with section 2.6.22.2-2, because it did not specify single family docks versus commercial docks. He suggested that staff have a workshop to discuss these issues and allow the public to understand their position. -Mr. Sansbury asked how they drafted this language without meeting with the Marine Industry. Bill Lorenz explained that he had Doug Suitor draft the original amendments in January and had him send an email of previous drafts to all the stakeholders who were involved in the MPP. This is how the staff"alerted" them as to what they were doing. Page 15 April 02, 2003 He added that on page four of section 2.6.22.1 states that this regulation does not apply to single family docks, but they are subject to the requirements found elsewhere in the LDC. He added that in regards to the Clam Bay System, this section also did not apply to single family homes, only to commercial properties. -Erica Lynne asked Mr. Morgan if he was now comfortable with the sections of the amendment that he was questioning. Mr. Morgan stated that he was still uncomfortable with the sections. He also stated that they never received an email and that it is not the best way to follow-up with people. He feels that more consideration should be given to this amendment. -Mr. Sansbury asked what the "science" was behind the five miles and one boat per hundred foot lot regulations. Mr. Lorenz replied that the MPP indicates that a five mile on water travel distance was considered a sphere of influence because it was an area found in Collier County that would not allow for overlapping areas between businesses. Mr. Sansbury replied that he did not see the point in changing the original wording of the MPP plan. Mr. Lorenz explained that staff's position is that they are writing the MPP into the LDC as they have always interpreted and applied it since it was drafted. He added that the proposals have been sent to the state for their review. -Alexandra Santoro stated that she believed if someone needed to do the dredging for the preferred ranking in order to be allowed eight more boat slips, then they would be able to pay for it over time due to extra income from the eight extra boats. -Mr. Sorrell asked about the chances of receiving a dredging permit. Mr. Lorenz stated that it is a decision made by state and federal agencies. -Mr. Humiston stated that he believes the five mile radius makes a lot of sense as far as the Manatee usage, but he agreed with the speakers that the amendment was different than what was in the MPP. He also agreed with the recommendation of DSAC. -Alexandra Santoro made a motion to approve the LDC amendment as written. It was seconded by Erica Lynne. -Mr. Sorrell asked that they keep in mind that there have been more Manatees counted this year, than there ever has been in the past, and that he has friends in the Clam Bay System and does not want to see them restricted to one boat. Mr. Sansbury concurred Page 16 Apd102,2003 and asked staff if they could go back and meet with the concerned agencies in an attempt to get closer to an agreement. He could not support the amendment at this time. Mr. White stated that they could do this. He also cautioned the individual council members that they need to maintain the appearance of objectivity in reviewing this regulation and that they should not give to great a weight to their own individual circumstances. -The motion was recalled. The motion failed 5-2, (Erica Lynne and Alexandra Santoro were in favor of the motion.) -Mr. Humiston made a motion that they recommend approval, accepting the recommendation of DSAC and changing the language on the depth requirement as recommended by Mr. Booker. There was no second to this motion. The motion failed. -Mr. Coe stated that the only reason he turned this motion down was because he was tired of not including the people who should be included in the discussion, prior to writing the document. -Mr. Sansbury clarified that the EAC was not prepared to approve this document or any revision of the document, but they were prepared to recommend that staff sit down with the various involved representatives in attempt to review the items in question. All members of the EAC agreed. Mr. Coe moved this statement in the form of a motion. It was seconded by Mr. Humiston. -Erica Lynne stated that it was hard to vote against further discussion, but she clarified that she felt staff has done a good job. -The motion was recalled. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. -Alexandra Santoro asked that if this matter came before the EAC again, that a map be included, which showed where four foot depth already is in existence. -Doug Suitor showed that this was already in the MPP. D) 3.5.7 Excavation (Littoral Standards) -Bill Lorenz, stated that DSAC recommended approval of staff's proposal and to ensure that "fish farms" would be exempt from the Littoral zone requirements. Staff has added Page 17 April 02, 2003 this into the current draft. The summary contained comments from a variety of practitioners and design consultants. -Alexandra Santoro moved for approval. Mr. Humiston seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. E) 3.9.5.5.6 Preserves -Barbara Burgeson stated that this section was re-written from the original draft. Staff has reduced the amount of information in the draft. It was presented to DSAC and they recommended approval. In the second cycle they will be adding language that was removed due to controversy, but a workshop will be held before the review by the EAC. -Alexandra Santoro moved to approve. It was seconded by Mr. Dowd. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 6-0, (Mr. Coe was absent from this point on). F) 3.14 Vehicle on the Beach Regulations -Mr. Lorenz stated that he EAC approved the draft of this at their last meeting, supporting staff's recommendation of a ! 5 foot setback for mechanical cleaning equipment. DSAC's position was to utilize the state's position of 10 feet. Staff reviewed the information and has now proposed a compromise ofmaintaing the 15 foot setback for beach raking and mechanical beach cleaning machines, all of which are county run, but a 10 foot setback for surface grooming equipment that does not penetrate the sand. -Alexandra Santoro asked if surface grooming was defined or if it should be called surface grooming with no penetration. Mr. Lorenz felt it was clear, but it could be defined if necessary in the future. PUBLIC SPEAKERS 1) Nieole Ryan, representing the Conservancy, referred to the letter handed out by the Conservancy. She explained that their concern was minor, but in section 3.14.3.4.7 subsection 2 was eliminated because staff believed it was redundant, while the Conservancy feels that it added further clarification. They would like subsection 2 to be placed back into the amendment. -Mr. Lorenz stated they removed it due to redundancy, but if there was truly a change in substance then it would be fine. Page 18 April02,2003 -Mr. Sansbury stated that the second section made him question if some vehicles could be used prior to the time. Erica Lynne agreed. She provided a suggestion that included a portion of the second section into the first section. -Alexandra Santoro moved to approve staff's recommendation, with their further clarification that there is no misunderstanding, that vehicles are not allowed on the beach until after their Sea Turtle monitoring. It was seconded by Erica Lynne. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. G) Definitions - Density -Mr. White stated that an amendment was made to this based on the comments from staff and others. This was discussed at the CCPC & BCC joint meeting, which precipitated the change. -Mr. Sansbury asked what the effect was on the present density calculation. Mr. White explained that it does not change the manner of calculation and rounding, but it implements the BCC direction that the residential land areas not include existing platted areas for vehicular fight-of-ways. This is consistent with the change to the RT district provision. He added that the most important change is that the residential land area now expressly states that it may include land submerged below an existing fresh-water body, so long as they are in existence at the time the application is filed. The land submerged below title-water bodies or marine wetlands, may not be included in the calculation for gross acreage in order to determine density. -Alexandra Santoro moved to approve. It was seconded by Mr. Humsiton. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. VI. NEW BUSINESS -There was no new business to discuss. Vll. COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS -Mr. Sansbury reported that he presented the quadrennial report to the BCC three weeks ago. The BCC thanked the EAC for their service and stated that the EAC was doing a Page 19 April 02, 2003 good job. The BCC denied the request to allow for a majority vote of those present, and stated that the EAC would still have to have five votes for an official approval. -Alexandra Santoro clarified that they would like Solid Waste and Transportation on the agenda for the May meeting, as well as a discussion of code enforcement. She then asked about the newsletter she was writing. Barbara Burgeson stated that she could send them to staff and staff would distribute them. VIII. Adjournment -There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:03PM. Collier County Committee EAC Chairman (Tom Sansbury) Page 20